I know I didn’t make a big point of this, but it’s worthwhile to say. The church I go to — belongs to the “Southern Baptist Convention” and yes, I go there, but I don’t consider myself to be anything other than just a Christian who believes what the Bible says, in being the very word of God, Himself.
The way I look at it, that doesn’t make me a “Southern Baptist” just because I go there (although I don’t have a big problem with them).
AND ... the “naming conventions” ... like dispensational or pre-millennial or pre-tribulational are just that - “naming conventions” and not something to adhere to directly - in and of themselves. They’re merely a “shorthand designation” for what the Bible says.
It’s a way of categorizing things and labeling them so you don’t have to read out loud a whole series of Scriptures to then say — “that’s what I believe”. If you do that - you might as well read the whole Bible out loud - FIRST - and then say - “That’s what I believe and what I am.” ... :-). However, that would take several months to read out loud, and most people would not stick around to find out ... LOL ... so ... you just use these “short-hand desginations” for conversational purposes.
SO ... these are just “naming conventions” [the “dispensational” designation, the “pre-millennial” designation and the “pre-tribulational” designation]. They are not - in and of themselves - something to be “adhered” to. They are “explanations” in short-hand form of what an entire study of that subject area in the Bible, from many scripture passages - would say on its own - directly from the Bible.
At one time, it was sufficient to say, simply, “I am a Christian.” But, then it progressively became more complicated, as others started to ignore what the Bible said about various subjects it addresses - and people still called themselves “Christian” - when they were actually departing from the faith - and not really “upholding” it.
SO ... it began to be said that “I am a Christian” - with a proviso added - whatever was needed for that day and age to distinguish from the false teachers and the false Christians.
At this point in time - for “this day and age” - if one adds the provisos of - “dispensational” (which usually covers pre-mil and pre-trib), plus a reference to the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” - then they can “cover all their bases” and be clear on the true Christian message - which comes from the Bible.
Thus there’s several things here. One is that you’re not a Christian based on any church you go to. It has nothing to do with any church you go to. No church membership counts for ANYTHING in being a Christian. Thus, that’s one reason why I don’t emphasize church membership - unless someone really wants to know - then I tell them.
Then it has to do with “identifying oneself” in what a Christian really is - having to do with the Gospel according to the Scriptures - in which the Scriptures are the only basis and authority for the Christian (that’s the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” designation) and then it has to do with clearing up the position of what the Bible teaches - by specifying the “short-hand notation or “designation” of categories - called “pre-millennial”, “pre-tribulational” and “dispensational”.
Thus, none of this supplants or replaces the Bible but is simply a “short-hand notation” to let people know what the Bible says - without reading it out loud to them for several months, continuously ... :-)
I 100% agree with you! I feel the same way and when asked what "religion" I am, I answer "Christian". What happened to you on this thread when you were queried about what your denomination or whatever religion you followed is a typical question that mostly comes from one "specific" religion represented by those who are acting the most hostile to your comments here. I won't name it, but I think you probably know what I am talking about. It is an ongoing tactic whose sole purpose is to "pigeonhole" and label people. If you say you are a Presbyterian, for example, you will soon be met with a truckload of all the things wrong with the Presbyterian church and all the scandals are trumpeted because you may have at one point or another commented about that "specific" religion's like problem.
No matter how open we are to talk about our beliefs on ANY topic of Christianity, the revelation of our church's "label" will be used to parse whatever we may have to say. This is the main reason why - though some of us have been hounded and harassed to identify said label - we refuse to do so. This is NOT because of shame or any other reason other than we do not identify as Baptist or Presbyterian or Lutheran or Methodist, etc. primarily simply because we see ourselves as Christians who worship and fellowship with "...." Church. Usually, not jumping to every question about denominations is looked at by them, or at least intimated, as being "ashamed" of our denomination. Which is NOT the case at all and is simply because we want to avoid being lumped into a pot with a label on the outside that can then be used to paint everyone with the same brush. Refusal to identify is met with derision, usually, and often met by accusations of the silliest nature all in the quest to badger you into answering.
They seem to not understand that we would rather be considered as Bible-believing Christians first, who are capable of discussing doctrines of our Christian faith free from canned statements of faith or creeds that may or may not fully define our exact views. Those of the "specific" faith claim that every one of them all believes the same things, yet we know that even then there are nuances and various "interpretations" of dogmas that don't always match with everyone else. And that the professed and boasted UNITY isn't all that unified.
Just be aware that, because you have identified the name on the sign outside your chosen assembly place, you can expect some people will use it against you in whatever way they can. They are simply incapable of separating the believer from his chosen place of worship and do not, or will not, engage on discussions of doctrines as individuals. I really do think some cannot imagine anyone is able to know not only what they believe but WHY they believe it. They only know they believe what they are TOLD to believe and they have no freedom to examine other sides. It makes it difficult, sometimes, to dialog on the Religion Forum because disagreement with "specific" church's doctrines is seen as personal insults - as has already been evidenced on this thread. Not all are like this, of course, there ARE some who can engage respectfully and agree to disagree when it comes to it.